protocol review
npg
© 2015 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved.
A better way to handle this s ituation would have been for the PI, the v eterinarian and perhaps the IACUC chairperson to assess the clinical c ondition of the mouse together by the cage side. If a consensus could not be reached regarding euthanizing the mouse, the v eterinarian could have presented this case to the full IACUC c ommittee. In the meantime, the veterinarian could have continued to offer support to the PI. Both the PI and the veterinarian have vital roles in the success of a research project. A culture of cooperation and c ompassion will c ontribute to the satisfactory resolution of such issues. 1. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986; amended 2002). 2. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edn. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011). 3. Silverman, J., Suckow, M.A. & Murthy, S. The IACUC Handbook 3rd edn. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2014). 4. Bayne, K. & Turner, P.V. Laboratory Animal Welfare (Academic, London, 2014). Kapoor is veterinarian in small animal practice in Birmingham, AL, and Lawson is Associate Director of DLAM, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Response Veterinarian’s responsibility Deyanira Santiago, MBA, RLATG & Ann Marie Dinkel, MBA, RLATG
The Veterinarian’s Oath 1 seems to be a good starting point for this d iscussion: “I s olemnly swear to use my s cientific k nowledge and skills for the b enefit of society through the p rotection of a nimal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering…”. A veterinarian’s first concern should be the welfare of an animal.
LAB ANIMAL
If an animal is suffering and moribund, then it is the v eterinarian’s ethical r esponsibility to a lleviate that s uffering, including, if needed, by euthanizing the animal. Numerous organizations emphasize and reiterate that responsibility. The American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines for Euthanasia discuss e uthanasia and veterinary medical ethics2. The American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine’s statement on adequate care reads, “The veterinarian must have the responsibility and authority to assure that handling [and] euthanasia are a dministered as required to relieve pain and such suffering in research animals…”3. And the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International has issued a position statement titled The Attending Veterinarian and Veterinary Care4. The responsibilities of the Attending Veterinarian (AV) are addressed in the Animal Welfare Act regulations5, which define the AV as the “person… who has direct or delegated authority for activities involving animals” and further states that “[e]ach research facility shall employ an attending veterinarian under formal a rrangements.” Scofield’s animals had a known h istory of dermatitis with treatment and euthanasia as recommended by the v eterinary staff, and there had been no past problems with this strategy. But in this case, Scofield objected when a v eterinarian r ecommended euthanizing a nearly moribund mouse. The attending veterinarian (AV) agreed with the veterinarian’s assessment. The v eterinarian chose to euthanize the mouse when its condition deteriorated. He may have acted out of compassion or on the belief that it was a reasonable action on the basis of past p ractices. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 6 states that “ overall Program direction should be a shared r esponsibility among the IO, AV, and IACUC” but does not indicate that each
e ntity must be a part of every s ingular decision within the animal program. Since Great Eastern has an IACUC and the investigator commented on lack of funding, it is safe to assume there is an Institutional Assurance document describing the animal care program. That document should include a description of the responsibility of the AV and his or her designees. A line of authority should be clearly delineated for all r esponsible parties: the Institutional Official (IO), the AV and the IACUC. This documentation would surely have made the subcommittee’s investigation much easier. It would be very difficult to get all three elegate responsible e ntities to meet and d authority to the clinical v eterinarian each time a situation such as this occurs. Therefore, a written d ocumentation of how the program will be managed in the future is crucial for good animal care and good animal research. This suggestion is in line with the e mergency care section of the Guide addressing the need for delegated authority.
Volume 44, No. 1 | january 2015 15
1. American Veterinary Medical Association. Veterinarian’s Oath. 2. American Veterinary Medical Association. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition (AVMA, Schaumburg, IL, 2013). 3. American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. Adequate Veterinary Care. 4. Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International. The Attending Veterinarian and Veterinary Care. 5. Animal Welfare Act Regulations. 9 CFR. Chapter 1, Subchapter A—Animal Welfare. Part 2, Regulations. (1.1; 2.33). 6. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edn. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011). Santiago is Assistant Director, Office of Research Integrity & Compliance, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, and Dinkel is Trainer and Consultant, Training and Operations Consulting Services and Adjunct Faculty, Delaware Technical Community College, Georgetown, DE.
npg
© 2015 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved.
A better way to handle this s ituation would have been for the PI, the v eterinarian and perhaps the IACUC chairperson to assess the clinical c ondition of the mouse together by the cage side. If a consensus could not be reached regarding euthanizing the mouse, the v eterinarian could have presented this case to the full IACUC c ommittee. In the meantime, the veterinarian could have continued to offer support to the PI. Both the PI and the veterinarian have vital roles in the success of a research project. A culture of cooperation and c ompassion will c ontribute to the satisfactory resolution of such issues. 1. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986; amended 2002). 2. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edn. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011). 3. Silverman, J., Suckow, M.A. & Murthy, S. The IACUC Handbook 3rd edn. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2014). 4. Bayne, K. & Turner, P.V. Laboratory Animal Welfare (Academic, London, 2014). Kapoor is veterinarian in small animal practice in Birmingham, AL, and Lawson is Associate Director of DLAM, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Response Veterinarian’s responsibility Deyanira Santiago, MBA, RLATG & Ann Marie Dinkel, MBA, RLATG
The Veterinarian’s Oath 1 seems to be a good starting point for this d iscussion: “I s olemnly swear to use my s cientific k nowledge and skills for the b enefit of society through the p rotection of a nimal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering…”. A veterinarian’s first concern should be the welfare of an animal.
LAB ANIMAL
If an animal is suffering and moribund, then it is the v eterinarian’s ethical r esponsibility to a lleviate that s uffering, including, if needed, by euthanizing the animal. Numerous organizations emphasize and reiterate that responsibility. The American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines for Euthanasia discuss e uthanasia and veterinary medical ethics2. The American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine’s statement on adequate care reads, “The veterinarian must have the responsibility and authority to assure that handling [and] euthanasia are a dministered as required to relieve pain and such suffering in research animals…”3. And the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International has issued a position statement titled The Attending Veterinarian and Veterinary Care4. The responsibilities of the Attending Veterinarian (AV) are addressed in the Animal Welfare Act regulations5, which define the AV as the “person… who has direct or delegated authority for activities involving animals” and further states that “[e]ach research facility shall employ an attending veterinarian under formal a rrangements.” Scofield’s animals had a known h istory of dermatitis with treatment and euthanasia as recommended by the v eterinary staff, and there had been no past problems with this strategy. But in this case, Scofield objected when a v eterinarian r ecommended euthanizing a nearly moribund mouse. The attending veterinarian (AV) agreed with the veterinarian’s assessment. The v eterinarian chose to euthanize the mouse when its condition deteriorated. He may have acted out of compassion or on the belief that it was a reasonable action on the basis of past p ractices. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 6 states that “ overall Program direction should be a shared r esponsibility among the IO, AV, and IACUC” but does not indicate that each
e ntity must be a part of every s ingular decision within the animal program. Since Great Eastern has an IACUC and the investigator commented on lack of funding, it is safe to assume there is an Institutional Assurance document describing the animal care program. That document should include a description of the responsibility of the AV and his or her designees. A line of authority should be clearly delineated for all r esponsible parties: the Institutional Official (IO), the AV and the IACUC. This documentation would surely have made the subcommittee’s investigation much easier. It would be very difficult to get all three elegate responsible e ntities to meet and d authority to the clinical v eterinarian each time a situation such as this occurs. Therefore, a written d ocumentation of how the program will be managed in the future is crucial for good animal care and good animal research. This suggestion is in line with the e mergency care section of the Guide addressing the need for delegated authority.
Volume 44, No. 1 | january 2015 15
1. American Veterinary Medical Association. Veterinarian’s Oath. 2. American Veterinary Medical Association. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition (AVMA, Schaumburg, IL, 2013). 3. American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. Adequate Veterinary Care. 4. Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International. The Attending Veterinarian and Veterinary Care. 5. Animal Welfare Act Regulations. 9 CFR. Chapter 1, Subchapter A—Animal Welfare. Part 2, Regulations. (1.1; 2.33). 6. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edn. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011). Santiago is Assistant Director, Office of Research Integrity & Compliance, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, and Dinkel is Trainer and Consultant, Training and Operations Consulting Services and Adjunct Faculty, Delaware Technical Community College, Georgetown, DE.
